Investigation into G20 Police actions
Ian Tomlinson pushed to his death
The Commons Home Affairs Committee has released its report into an investigation in to the policing at the G20 summit.
Whilst the report had some positive things to say about the policing, there are issues that really should have been addressed a long time ago and the fact that no Senior Officers are being hauled over the coals is a sad indictment of the way in which no-one is prepared to take responsibility, though they are more than happy to take the Salary, Pension and Gongs.
Once again the Police have been criticised for using inexperienced Police Officers on the front line.
The continued failure by Police Officers to display their identification is a continuing issue and as this is a common sights across protests throughout the UK, I doubt the veracity of the claim that Police Officers are told this is essential and appropriate disciplinary action is taken against those who do not display their ID at all times.
I wonder if not displaying ID is actively encouraged to those members of the police force with the most volatile tempers. The rhetoric about displaying ID is old and stale and the reality is that nothing changes.
The attitude by the Police to view protestors first and foremost as criminals was again criticised, again age old mantra, with absolutely no change in action.
The use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, is nothing more than a standard criticism of police activity, in relation to not only large scale protests, but in day to day policing, with the creep of the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation to justify the unjustifiable.
ACPO guidelines call for clear communication from the Police, yet as Commander Bob Broadhurst admitted to that this certainly was not the case at the G20. The issue of communication with large crowds goes back to the May Day protest of 2001 and prior, yet Broadhurst is happy to acknowledge once again the Police got it wrong, but doesn’t feel any need to resign. How can something as simple as communication take over 8 years to work out?
Containment tactics are once again a pressing issue for the Police to review, but they appear happy to continue using a practice, which is has a clear House of Lords ruling:
The Austin ruling says that containment as a strategy is lawful only in specific circumstances including: when the cordon is necessary for purely crowd control purposes and to protect people and property from injury, when many of the people contained were bent on violence; and those who were not demonstrators, or were seriously affected by being confined, were allowed to leave.
The use of containment is also before consideration at the European Court, yet the Police continue to use containment as a first option strategy, despite on many occasions being in breach of the House of Lords ruling. This attitude by the Police that they are above the law is not acceptable.
The use of ‘distraction’ techniques, took some in the Committee by surprise, which is no great shock as MPs don’t seem to know very much about the legislation they pass and is yet another example of committee members not having much of an idea about the subject they are investigating, making their findings fatuous, rather than incisive.
The fact that ‘distraction’, itself a misleading term, which makes it lawful for police officers to hit, kick and baton whip people in certain circumstances, is not widely known, is a concern, as it demonstrates that the lawful Power of the Police to abuse members of the Public is not widely enough understood, or appreciated.
The Metropolitan Police choose to ignore reports such as this and it will be no surprise if they choose to ignore this report. The investigation in to the Parliament Square demonstration suggested that officers’ batons that had been used, should be taken away for forensic use afterwards. The Metropolitan Police decided they didn’t like this suggestion, so decided not to comply.
Knowing full well that there are major events which occur in London, I found the statement made by Sir Paul Stephenson, to the committee astonishing:
… I then tried to place that in the context that there were 13,000 officer days during this operation. It was a remarkable operation planned over an incredibly short period of time that would normally take years and actually the vast majority of my officers did a remarkable job.
I really think this man has lost the plot. The Met handle demonstrations regularly and should be prepared to handle demonstrations regularly, yet according to Stephenson ‘It was a remarkable operation planned over an incredibly short period of time that would normally take years’ If that is the case, the Met is even more incompetent than many people think.
It is not acceptable that we hear time and time again the same issues raised with Policing, yet nothing changes. Police Officers need to understand that they are the ‘Servants of the people not Masters of the People’ and needs drumming in constantly.
The Northern Ireland Police Service has learnt rapidly how to build a relationship with protestors that does not lead to conflict and the fact that their lessons have not been widely implemented is neglect and incompetence at the top of the Police Forces around the Country.
It is time some of these fat cat Senior Officers got the boot and they should not be permitted to drift on until they receive their pension.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6419cbdb-fb00-4902-9a0f-80027a8703e5)
Dissolution of Parliament
ballot box
The complete contempt with which Politicians treat the general public was clearly demonstrated yesterday in a debate in the House of Commons proposing the dissolution of parliament.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru, used their time to propose that the House be dissolved, forcing a general election. Politicians argue of course, that this was never going to come to fruition as there was no chance of Labour MPs voting for the proposal and with their majority the proposal would be defeated.
It may have escaped these self serving MPs that large sections of the British Public are very keen on a general election being held immediately. This debate would have provided the politicians who oppose the idea of an early General Election with an opportunity to put forward their case, not just to other members of parliament, but to the General Public.
The very fact they missed this simple truism indicates just how ignorant they are of the Public mood and how they treat the House of Commons as their personal fiefdom. The view was taken by politicians that the opposition benches would support the proposal, the Labour MPs would oppose the motion and therefore there was nothing to discuss and sure enough about 30 MPs attended the debate over the period and all the MPs managed to vote, defeating the proposal by 70 odd votes.
In any other walk of life a discussion about the effective dismissal of all staff, would generate some interest, people may just turn up to argue their case, but not politicians. They would of course argue, the maths was done the matter was simple, but as far as the electorate is concerned the maths isn’t the issue, the suitability of MPs to remain in office was the issue.
The debate was about the dissolution of parliament, which was a debate about the MPs themselves, not the more usual motion of a vote of Confidence in the Government. This should not have been a debate about the suitability of Government, but of the MPs themselves, a quite different proposition. For sure, the outcome remains the same, however the fact that so few MPs, particularly those who had been ‘outed’ as expense fixers, didn’t see this as an opportunity to defend their position is inexcusable.
The debate ended up as a party political divide, when it should have been a free vote. I would have liked to have seen my MP defending his position and justifying why he did or didn’t think parliament should be dissolved, instead he didn’t bother to turn up and voted with the party whip.
Politicians have learnt absolutely nothing. They have no interest in politics, just in their career, why do they then express shock when few people vote?
This situation can not be allowed to continue. MPs need to be accountable and when a debate comes up, which is of great public interest, the least they could and should do is turn up for the debate.
They all managed to turn up for PMQs a few hours earlier. Why didn’t they bother to turn up on a debate of real importance, rather than the knock about stuff of PMQs?
Mainstream media turn a blind eye to this contempt, preferring to concentrate on the story of what did or didn’t Andrew Lansley mean and was he stupid being honest. What trite rubbish, we are not in the process of a General Election, we all know services will have to be cut any party who pretend otherwise we know is lying. Once we have a date for a general election, both parties will have to set out their stall.
If the Media and Politicians are intending to hammer each other for pointing out exactly what everyone knows is going to happen, public sector cuts will have to be made; then none of them have learnt a lesson.
We need to know what each party intends to cut and what they intend to save, then we can make a decision on which party meets our own priorities, pretending it isn’t going to happen is the pathetic drivel politicians have been spouting for years and the mainstream media revel over.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=55b909ed-de2f-4a68-bd9e-639203348cb8)
English bigorty
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
British and in particular English bigotry and racism, which is endemic is usually portrayed by the Daily Mail and Express in particular, as perfectly reasonable, is suddenly deemed unacceptable when the natural home of English racists, the BNP, comes home to roost.
Why Brown and the Nationalist Socialist Party, more commonly known as the ‘Labour Party’ are so shocked that the Nazis win votes, when they have a slogan which proclaims ‘British jobs for British workers’, beggars belief.
The Conservative Party who spend their life proclaiming that there are far too many immigrants in this country, suddenly back track and decide that isn’t what they meant at all.
The UK has for many years been an endemically a racist and bigoted country; loud proclamations are made of a multi-cultural society, which in reality it is not.
Having spent most of my life living in London, where although the situation is not ideal, there are many different cultures living together in many Boroughs, I recently moved to East Anglia, where with out a doubt anyone who isn’t obviously White British is treated as an invader. Polish are deemed to be evil illegal immigrants, despite the fact they are from the EU and a non white face is of course up to no good.
I have had far too many arguments in this part of the world with people who genuinely believe that anyone who isn’t white is a scrounger an illegal immigrant and should be kicked out of the country. My only surprise was that the BNP didn’t secure a seat in East Anglia.
My first battle against racism was back in 1977 at the Lewisham march at the age of 13, when for the first time the Police used riot shields, nothing much has changed.
The simple fact is that many English people are racists and of course the BNP achieved European Representation. The Local Council representation was played down, as it didn’t hit the international agenda, but the sight of neo Nazis representing the UK at the European level has suddenly made the media and politicians pretend they actually care about the issue.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f49c7a2d-1b57-444a-b284-7476bd0a7f8a)
Politicians and the Remembrance Day claims
- Image via Wikipedia
A growing list of politicians is being found to have put forward claims for Remembrance wreaths for fallen Service personnel, the common refrain being ‘it was an error’.
This demonstrates, if nothing else, the absolute contempt with which Politicians respect tax-payers money. The only way this ‘oversight’ can have been submitted, if you believe their excuse, is because they didn’t even bother to look at their claims, having someone else do their sums for them.
You can’t write in something and claim it an oversight, which means that someone else fills in your expense claim form. An expense claim form is something you are absolutely and ultimately responsible for and blaming someone else for it, is not even remotely excusable.
Why would they not look at their expense claims? Because they didn’t care, as they expected whatever was to be claimed was paid and whatever was rejected would always remain secret.
How any scumbag who has claimed for a Remembrance Day wreath, by mistake or intentionally has the gall to remain in office is untenable, it demonstrates absolute contempt for those who fought and died.
To treat a Remembrance Day wreath as something worth a punt on expenses, even to keep the receipt and pass it on to their ‘expense claim form filler’ is disgraceful. The only way that the ‘expense claim form filler’, who incidentally the tax payer would be paying for through ‘staff allowances’ would have had the receipt, would have been if the politician passed it over. If they paid by card they didn’t bother to look at their statement prior to submitting the statement over for completion, without crossing out the items they didn’t want claiming, is laughable.
The word Remembrance, is by itself ironic, the sleaze balls who claimed this money would have appeared to have forgotten what they had on their claim forms, how they can expect anyone to believe they have the capacity to undergo an act of Remembrance I can’t imagine.
British Democracy is discredited, British MPs are discredited, yet they seem to believe they are the best people to work out the way forward.
I don’t want representation by someone who sinks so low as to claim money back for a Remembrance day wreath, they are disgusting morally bankrupt individuals, who should be out of office and out of sight.
I for one will not be performing any act of remembrance on their behalf when they are long gone.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2864b3e6-0bda-4956-86fd-50aa88e59d98)
Politicians’ tax breaks
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
Chapter 8
292 Overnight expenses allowances of MPs
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of an overnight expenses allowance paid to a Member of the House of Commons in accordance with a resolution of that House.
(2) “Overnight expenses allowance” means an allowance expressed to be in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred by the Member in staying overnight away from the Member’s only or main residence, for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties—
(a) in the London area, as defined in such a resolution, or
(b) in the Member’s constituency.
While MPs are professing to not be very good at maths and have short memories, when it comes to legislation, they seem pretty clued up.
Tucked away in Chapter 8 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act of 2003 they managed to remember to exempt their overnight expenses from tax liability and more than that thought top draft the bill loosely enough that it was the House rules that would decide what was and wasn’t to be counted as overnight accommodation.
Chapter 8 of the Act is a fascinating read as it exempts MPs from taxation in areas such as loss of office, Ministers exemption for taxation for transportation, whilst ensuring that other elected officials do net get above their station and are treated as every other tax payer in regard to expenses.
MPs are very good at telling us they are sorry, they didn’t realise and they aren’t very good at administration. They are equally adept at crafting legislation to suit their own ends.
While MPs are busy cleaning up their house, let’s start by repealing section 291, 292 and 295 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act of 2003.
The role of the Speaker of the House of Commons
The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons chamber. The holder of this office is an MP who has been elected to be Speaker by other Members of Parliament. During debates they keep order and call MPs to speak. The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times.
The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission.
The role of the Commons Commission as the overall supervisory body of the House of Commons Administration is: Appointing staff of the House; Preparing and laying before the House the Estimates for the House of Commons Service; Allocating functions to House departments and Keeping staff pay and conditions broadly in line with those of the Civil Service.
The Members Estimate Committee has the same membership as the Commission. It considers matters relating to MPs’ pay and allowances on behalf of the House of Commons.
House of Commons
Politicians have shown themselves unfit to govern themselves, the House of Commons Commission and Members Estimate Committee should be taken out of their control. It can not be acceptable any longer, for MPs or anyone they directly elect, to have any responsibility for Administration, finances or regulation of MPs.
This Commission should be directly elected by the General Public, for a fixed four year term, with no second term of office. The Commission should be responsible for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The terms of reference should encompass: Regulation and Compliance; Audit and accounting; Salary and benefits; Staff appointments in the; and the Administration and maintenance of the House of Commons and Lords.
MPs really do not seem to have got the point yet about their endemic corruption.
Prime candidates for the position of Speaker, include:
Sir Alan Beith
Sir Alan Beith, who together with his wife claimed £178 000 in second home allowances between 2004 and 2008. This included a claim for a £5 457 kitchen and a £219 air-conditioning unit. He also has an external consultancy for which he is remunerated in the region of £20 000 a year. He also decided he needed to claim just over £6 000 in food expenses between 2005 and 2008. Would he have dared try any of these expenses claims with his external consultancy? Really great references for revising the system Beith.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
Sir Alan Haselhurst, currently Deputy Speaker and another prime candidate, claimed £12 000 for gardening expenses, including £202 for pea gravel, which I am sure made was absolutely essential to carry out his role as an MP and makes him a suitable person to clean up British Politics. He earns £104 000 a year so a bill for £202 would cause him to struggle.
David Davis
David Davis, who may or may not stand, felt the need to claim £2 000 to roll and mow his gardens. Thanks Davis, I can’t understand how having your lawn mown is necessary to Parliamentary duties, but I guess I can trust you to deal with excessive claims by MPs.
Sir Menzies Campbell
Sir Menzies Campbell, was so comfortable with his claim of £1 490 for a designers fee, that he has since felt the need to pay it back. But he also feels he is the man to lead reform and stop these outrages claims. Say that again in a language I understand Campbell. You took the money until you were found out then felt you needed to pay it back, but you can be trusted to be honest in the future? Yes, sure, got it now.
John Bercow
John Bercow, can’t quite recall which home was his second and which was declared as his first at a particular point in time he was so busy flipping homes, but is certain he didn’t have to pay Capital Gains Tax. He is such a busy and dedicated Constituency MP, he can only just squeeze in a consultancy paying him about £40 000 a year for a Cayman Island registered business. Like it Bercow, tax havens and clean ups, I am sure you will make a real change to stopping MPs finding loop holes in avoiding taxes.
If these really are the leading Candidates and MPs believe they are appropriate for the role of chairing the Commons Commission, I guess cleaning up and change mean different things to MPs and the rest of the population.
Politicians should not be in a position whereby they have any choice in the people regulating of their tax, pay, pensions, regulation audit or compliance.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7889e792-1d1d-401b-867e-7a5b082ad12c)
I am an MP I need to be compensated
Before politicians decide they need a pay rise, as inevitably they will loose many of their perks and argue strongly they require a pay rise in compensation, it is time for an examination the career aspirations of politicians.
Political spin
We frequently hear politicians proclaiming, what an honour it is to serve their constituents. I do not wish on this entry to look at the relationship between politicians and those they are meant to serve, rather, to question the expectations politicians have of their ‘career’.
A precept has crept in to politicians minds that they have the right to a career as an MP, through the path of: Hopeful candidate; safe seat; established MP; Minister and possibly to Chancellor or Prime Minister and they appear to assume this is their right of passage.
Disregarding their success on the political career path, many MPs secure plum roles in industry, way above their capability, barring their contacts in Government.
I would argue there is no case for a career path expectation.
Does any one vote in their MP on the basis they need a career and promotion? (Other than the unrepresented consituents for whom the Speaker of the House is their uncontested representative, which is a different debate), Politicians assume this to be the case.
It is due to this career path acceptance, that politicians now insist they require second jobs and a higher salary.
This mind set needs to be reviewed.
A politician is voted in for a period of office and only that period of office. They do not have a right to become an MP leading to a career path.
We will undoubtedly hear a call for politicians to be paid a higher salary in the coming months, but this has no foundation.
The argument provided by MPs is that they could secure a higher salary were they not serving the country; in very few cases would this be true. The majority of MPs are able to secure a decent salary, only after a stint as an MP.
As two simple examples, John Major, turned down to be a Bus Conductor, became the Prime Minister and now secures substantial fees for public speaking. I won’t here question how a failed bus conductor with no money managed to purchase a large property in his constituency just on an MPs salary.
John Prescott a ships steward, who sunk to the position of Deputy Prime Minister, now, secures significant payments for public engagements.
Would a failed Bus Conductor and a Ships Steward, (albeit Prescott became a Shop Steward) really have become household names demanding large appearance fees were it not for their stint in the political arena?
It is pertinent to consider what Politicians expect out of their move in to politics; evidently many see this as a right of passage.
For certain there are politicians who are on a successful career path and would expect to obtain high office in their chosen profession. However it is they who choose to become politicians not someone forcing them. Those on successful career paths appear to see this is a short cut to more fame and power and it is not acceptable.
The premise that a politician has a right to a long career in politics is the root of the problem and this expectation sits in stark contrast to the proclamation that ‘serving my constituents is a privilege’.
There is no reason why an MP takes a second job. If the role is worth the £60,000 a year, then there is no time for a second job.
The fatuous argument that ‘I need to keep in touch with “real people”’, is easily countered; when a politician feels they have lost touch, stand down, take a different job and if latterly they wish to continue as a politician, seek re-election. The counter argument being of course: but then you are left with politicians who know nothing about running a country.
There are plenty of counter arguments to this, including the argument the Conservative Party will present at the next election, never mind one of the most influential politicians in the world, the President of the United States, who doesn’t need a career in politics to be elected to power.
There is no acceptable reason politicians require a higher basic salary on obtaining office as an MP. They have 113 day holiday a year, the trite rubbish about constituency surgeries is a nonsense, (try making an appointment for a surgery in most constituencies) and for the first year of any administration, most people are on a learning curve.
If they wish to serve the people, that is well and good, there are no excuses for second jobs or higher salaries unless the precept that politicians quote is the accepted position.
‘…We need a higher salary to secure the best people and we need second jobs so that we stay in touch….’
If peole wish to serve their constituents, then salary is a lesser argument if it is only a five year term rather than a career option and a second job is irrelevant.
The role of an MP should be to serve their constituents. An argument rages in this country as to whether we vote for a person or a party, which is yet another debating point. In the voting publics mind, there is not a perception that we vote in someone to enhance their career, yet over the coming months this will be unspoken basis of the ongoing argument for a pay rise.
MPs should not have a second job and neither do they need a higher salary. If they do not like the salary the position carries, don’t stand for office. If they feel the need for a second job to ‘keep in touch’ they have been in the role too long.
Aside from all of that, please do not call for MPs to stand down until the contracts for new MPs are changed.
An MP is entitled to a tax free pay off of almost £40,000 if they are voted out of office and more gallingly even though this is written in to their contract, unlike every one else in this Country, who has a severance pay entitlement, they do no have to pay tax on it.
Yes, it was MPs who voted for this exclusion from taxation.
Die for the UK but don’t try and live here
1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
The disgraceful treatment of Gurkhas continues, despite very strong protests, which have been ongoing for years.
Gurkha Corporal Kumar Pun served in the Gurkhas for 14 years, just one month in to a tour of Afghanistan he was killed in a suicide bomb attack.
The first step was to alert his wife Parbati, just 24 hours after his death that she and their children could be ordered out of the UK next year, when their Visa expires.
This position was subsequently changed with the UK Borders Agency stating: ‘…We will not curtail this lady’s leave. We would not seek to remove the widow of any soldier killed in action, whether they are a Gurkha, a foreign or a Commonwealth soldier… A soldier’s spouse or dependants would almost certainly be granted settlement after applying for leave to stay in the UK…’
The statement still leaves a question as to settlement and is not an acceptable position.
Yesterday Wotton Bassett saw the homecoming of four soldiers who died that day, including Corporal Pun, marking the sacrifice made by these men, yet hypocritically at the same time, obfuscating on whether his family had any right to be here.
Corporal Pun Kumar served all over the world, including tours of duty in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Oman, Kenya, Kosovo and the Falklands. Most of the past decade has been based around living in Britain.
In 1999, Corporal Pun married his wife, he had been serving in the Gurkhas for 3 years, but she wasn’t granted leave to live in this country until 2006, 7 years after they married, when their eldest daughter was three.
It transpires that this is sadly not the end to the appalling way Gurkhas are treated.
In 2007 Gurkhas were given the right to leave their own pension scheme and switch to the regular Army scheme, which provides a widow with a lump sum payout in the event of her husband being killed, it is not known whether Gurkha Corporal Kumar Pun had transferred to the new scheme, so his widow may receive nothing.
Because Corporal Pun only served for 13 years, there is no entitlement to war widow’s pension; they are required to serve 15 years for this entitlement.
It would be better if Britain omitted the word Great, from its self congratulatory name.
There is nothing to be pounding a chest about; service personnel and the families of non-British Nationals who fight for this Country, are treated in a morally reprehensible manner.
RBS – we need bonuses – we need them now
RBS courtesy oyalbankofscotland.com
The RBS Board appear to have learnt nothing and are keen to review their perks once again.
In early May RBS reported a loss of £895 million for the first quarter, which compares to a profit of £245 million a year earlier.
Last year the bank managed a loss of £24.1 billion and has an estimated £325 billion of exposed potential uncovered debt, more prosaically termed toxic debt so it doesn’t sound quite so dire. This is being transferred to yet another tax payer bailout, with RBS being liable for £19.5 billion of the debt and paying an insurance premium for £6.5 billion for the risk, bearing in mind the tax payers own 70% of RBS, we the tax payer are in effect paying another set of bureaucrats to insure against a risk, we the tax payer are already covering, money for old rope if you can find a spot in the Quango.
This is the Bank that managed to pay off their former Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin a pension amounting to £16 million and is set to pay Gordon Pell, the last remaining executive still on the board from the Goodwin era, a pension worth £9.8 million, when he retires next year.
Looking forward
But it all gets better for the future of RBS Executives though sadly, not for the tax payers who bailed out the bank.
The tax payers will be injecting another £13 billion in to RBS, in addition to the £20 billion already paid to strengthen the balance sheet, with a further £6 billion on stand by.
The Bank is undertaking a restructure and there are resulting board changes.
Stephen Hester CEO RBS
In essence the suggestion by Stephen Hester, Chief Executive is that the bank would be separated into two arms, with the bank’s riskier assets and operations grouped together.
Without going in to the finer details, the headlines are:
Gordon Pell, head of Retail Banking is being replaced by Brian Hartzer, from ANZ. Mr Hartzer, who is not an Executive Board Member, so his remuneration package has not been disclosed, is expected to be paid a £3 million pound handshake,
Chris Sullivan, currently head of the bank’s insurance business, is going to head up Corporate Banking, taking over from Alan Dickinson, who is being moved to Chairman Corporate Banking until he retires next year. His pay off is unknown as he is not a Board Executive.
Brian Stevenson, who runs the group’s global transaction services division will report to Mr Sullivan.
Nathan Bostock will join the lender from Abbey National on June 1 as its news head of risk and restructuring.
Paul Geddes, who currently runs UK retail and reports to Mr Pell, will run the insurance division and become a member of the executive board.
Guy Whittaker, the finance director, is being replaced by October and it is expected he will receive a share award.
It has come to light that several senior bankers at RBS are being paid guaranteed bonuses, this flies in the face of Government Policy and any morally acceptable position. The current FSA rules at present clearly state that the bank must be able to claw back bonuses in the event of poor performance and there must be no rewards for failure. A guaranteed bonus cannot be clawed back.
The argument, few months on from the supposed ‘change of culture’ and wringing of hands of course being, that the best people need to be retained and incentivised, so these rules which sounded good when the situation was daily news, just shouldn’t apply now as we can probably get away with it, as the focus is on MP sleaze and upcoming elections.
I just wonder how many people could do worse than a £895 million loss for the first quarter and if this is the best, are the ‘best’ worth the money?
This becomes more apposite when Stephen Hester said of the results and the likely time scale of RBS returning to profit:
‘…It’s not really in our hands, it’s in the hands of the economy and what it does to our loan books,…’
If it isn’t in the hands of the Executives and it is all down to a bit of luck and wind in the right direction, why pay the executives anything?
Philip Hampton Chairman RBS
But it gets better yet; please step forward Sir Philip Hampton, the Chairman of RBS. It transpires he is in talks with the Government about a new incentive scheme for Executive Bonuses, which are expected to net senior staff awards running into millions of pounds. Once again the argument being, this is how the best people will be recruited and retained. The best people to run a business that is: ‘not really in our hands’.
The proposals focus on how these poor beleaguered bankers can be awarded a bonus when the market is so volatile, with the suggestion being there should be some complex measurement of performance against banking sector peers and FTSE 100 companies. Hardly a fair measure, when this is a business that can’t fail, whilst most of the other businesses in the FTSE 100 do not have Government subsidies running to the tune of £ billions and are in sectors or markets which can fail.
These negotiations will only cover this financial period, the period in which the prospects are ‘not really in our hands’ as the FSA are looking at a new set of rules for the coming future.
RBS has learnt nothing and the moral decay continues.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d2ff76c2-f22a-4455-bbe9-b37a15a1a0f3)
Is Gordon Brown of this world?
I posed a question on Squidoo recently:
How do you think British MPs expenses should be changed, if at all?
The range of answers that came back, were diverse, but none included the concept that Gordon Brown has managed to suggest.
Some people even directly commented on the Prime Ministers idea of a daily allowance:
‘…Daily MPs allowance. The disgusting attempt to raise MPs salaries by the back door ever….’
Other ideas suggested included:
‘…Parliament should build another Porculis House, but full of apartments, for MPs to stay, whilst in London….’
Gordon Brown
How Gordon Brown can really believe that the indignation many people feel about MPs being paid expenses for items such as bath plugs, fictitious ‘primary residences’, flowers, Persian Rugs and porn films is better served by every MP receiving a daily allowance is beyond comprehension.
Does he not understand that it is the very fact that MPs are seen to be on the gravy train and claiming for unacceptable allowances, which is the issue?
People are demanding transparency, yet he has become so far detached from reality, that he truly believes that transparency means providing MPs with a daily payment for which they do not have to make any account of what it is spent on.
This is a clear indication of his complete disconnect with the people he is meant to be serving. It is the same type of reality detachment Margaret Thatcher underwent. Had politicians actually had an interest in serving their constituents, then last year they would have forced through a change in the expenses and payments system, but they failed to handle the situation.
Politicians are viewed by many, who have supported them for years, as morally corrupt, leading to even lower support for the British Democratic system. Because MPs are unable to understand their role in Society, they are leading themselves to their own downfall.
The current British Democracy can not survive for long, when less than 50% of the voting population bother to cast their votes and this threshold is likely to be broken in the near term. Politicians probably have one more election in which to change their ways, before their supporters, those who vote, will be outnumbered by those who see no value in the Democratic System, those who don’t vote.
At that tipping point, their will have to be a change. Already we are governed by a party where over two thirds of the voting population do not support their policies, once we have a system whereby over fifty percent of those eligible to vote do not even support the system, it can only be a short time before a power vacuum is created and who knows where the country heads.
Gordon Brown, ignoring the reality of the disgust many people have for the way MPs behave over their personal finances, can not be left unchallenged.
The arrogance shown by politicians in dealing with this issue will not be forgotten.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=666311d9-ed5d-48a8-ab5b-3685a92bd9b9)